Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses
Fubar writes: Two city council members from Phoenix, AZ are introducing "draft language" for public discussion that would make it illegal to use a drone to film people without their knowledge. The council members are worred about privacy of people in their own yards, even including the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant for drone surveillance. A violation of the ordinance would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries up to a $2,500 fine and six months in jail.
A) It needs to only be applied to Drones with Cameras
B) Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From TFA
Two City Council members today will unveil a draft ordinance that would make it a crime to use a drone to film, audiotape or photograph people on their private property without their consent.
Which basically goes against well established photography law that basically says if you can see it from a public location then its fair game.
OTOH I'm not sure how you can reasonably legislate pics taken from drones. Do you now define a private location to include the airspace above it? But what if I am in public airspace, yet high enough to see over a wall?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's already an accepted standard of law that people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when on their own property, including in their vehicles. Thus, photographing them by ANY means (my emphasis) is already illegal unless supported by a lawfully-obtained surveillance or search warrant. To single out "drones" as a means of obtaining photos or video is knee-jerk at best, and arguably could lead to severe restrictions on photography in general.
It's sad that there are some (for lack of a better term coming to mind) quadrotor-cowboys that are more interested in whether they CAN obtain footage using their newfangled toys than stopping to think about whether they SHOULD. Those are the ones that will poison the well for legitimate experimentation and application, such as search and rescue, crop monitoring, etc. Before the dust has settled, the moneyed interests will make sure that the only players allowed to take to the air are Department Of Defense contractors, and if people aren't careful, even the radio-controlled-model industry will find itself under the heavy end of the regulatory hammer, even more so than when the FAA issued its "interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft" in July. That "interpretation" alone could, IMO, completely destroy the first-person-view mode of operation if followed to the letter.
Just my 2p worth...save up the change for a spool of Cat6 or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
The law will use the word 'consent', not 'knowledge' Don't assume shitty slashdot summaries are ever going to be written into law.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This ordinance doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it struck down if it passes.
The way privacy law works now is that if you're standing in your yard and are plainly visible from a public area (the street), you can be photographed without your consent because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There is an exception for things like fences and tall hedges and the like, but for the most part, if you can see it without trespassing on someone's land it's fair game.
Under this ordinance, I could photograph my neighbor mowing his lawn with a regular camera, but doing so with a drone would be in violation. I'm surprised they didn't simply say "Existing laws and regulations governing photography and the right to privacy also apply to cameras mounted on drones."
This is simply based on AZ misdemeanor sentencing maximums.
ARS 13-707 says that a Class 1 Misdemeanor (the highest class before a felony) has a maximum sentence of six months. 13-802 has the maximum fine: $2500. What the actual possible sentence for this particular crime would be is entirely different. [Also, it's unlikely that someone guilty of a this crime, unless the AG's office wanted to make an example of someone, wouldn't plead guilty to a lesser charge, which happens, like, always.]
It's worth noting that court costs can add nearly $1000 to small things. I think the going rate is $800 or so now in surcharges, depending on what municipality and court you happen to be in.
Regardless, 6mo/$2500 is just the maximum limit on a Misdemeanor-1 in AZ.
---
Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing is already illegal in Arizona, by the way, and is already up to a Felony-4.
So, drones, schmones.
I'm all for banning use of drones and other means of specifically filming someone in their own backyard without their knowledge. On the other hand, in the not too distant future we might have drones delivering packages to peoples' homes, searching for lost people and/or pets, or doing some other useful stuff, where cameras may be helpful for navigating around obstacles etc. Filming should be allowed for such purposes, but heavy penalties should be placed on storing, distributing or otherwise misusing such footage without a valid reason.
The good council members need to find a more important topic to occupy their time. Flying a drone over someone's yard is bad, but flying a news helicopter over it is just fine? How about kites with cameras on them? Balloons? African swallows?
Any modern satellite can get photos of you from space. Any plane passing over can also snap pics as well. Beyond that anything in public view is fair game. Obviously if you are concerned about privacy you should have a roof and walls around you. Can you imagine a balloonist shooting pics of his voyage and accidentally getting people in the background of the pics? In essence if anything is private it needs to be tightly held aside and never shared with anyone in any way. Many people are expanding the concept of privacy rather foolishly. We are also encouraging all manner of crimes by disallowing voice recordings in many situations. How many seniors have been violated by dishonest sales tactics in their homes? Yet it is a crime to record voice. It is time for people to take responsibility for their deeds and words instead of allowing people to commit all kinds of crimes and encouraging lies.
I also have the right to record what I see.
Sadly, you do not have the absolute right to record what you see. For instance being in your hotel room and having someone film you from a peephole in the door. Even though you might be able to see it when you are standing in a public place, you have no right to record what you can see.
If the subject of the photography is in public (as opposed to a publically accessible, but privately owned place), courts have basically ruled the subjects have no expectation of privacy, so most photographic recording is fair game. This is how paparazzi get many of their photos legally...
If the photographer is in a non-public area (e.g., the publically accessible, but privately owned hotel hallway), courts have ruled that public access rules do not apply.
The grey area is when the subject is in a non-public area, but the photographer is in a public area (e.g., a drone in "public" airspace, above a private residence).
AFAIK and IANAL, the line is generally drawn that invasion of privacy requires a recording device of some sort in these situations. It stems from the idea that invasion of privacy requires the publicizing of private life of an individual that is offensive to a "reasonable" person and/or not of legitimate concern to the public. I suppose w/o a recording device, you often cannot effectively publicize it so it falls outside typical invasion scope... And of course the definitions of "offensive" and "reasonable" are generally left up to the courts to decide...